Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 4:29pm:


so if I removed the word 'incompetence' do you wish to challenge the statement that it was '6 years of debt funded government'?

because if you don't, then frankly, your credibility is shredded.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:12pm:


coz it costs more to collect than the revenue generated.  and it reduces employment slightly.

Karnal wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:34pm:



The resources do not belong to the "people" of Australia whatsoever.
No more so than the water of the Pacific ocean that washes up on the east coast beaches belongs to you either.

The mining companies pay royalties to mine there.

Just like we as a company pay for the licence to drill for gas deposits off-shore in Australian waters.

The companies are staffed by Australians, we invest in capital which in turn provides service industry ancillary jobs in Australia, we play a role in Australian society as well.

The projects are even undertaken by Australian companies - ours is a Pty Ltd company registered in Sydney.

To demand "foreign companies" should pay their fair share completely ignores reality and panders to the ill-informed on the topic.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 5:51pm:


Not when you look at the profit involved, the effect of mining on the overall economy, and the jobs mining actually provides.

The biggest areas of emoyment in Australia are training/education, tourism and construction.

Mining employment is largely FIFO, and driven by the fast bucks. This takes skills out of other areas of the economy. Try getting an electrician in Perth.

Minerals are owned by the states. If you think it was set up this way for the sole profit of foreign companies, you must have a very strange idea of the commonwealth and the role of government.

Who knows? Maybe you’re right and I’m living in some bizarre parallel universe.

You do have this effect on people you know, Andrei.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 6:06pm:


Feel free to inform us all in this thread, Longy.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 6:55pm:


I’ll tell you, Longy. My problem is the title of this thread: ditching the mining tax.

The mining tax wasn’t originally political. Tony Abbott only made it this way because he saw a wedge to get Rudd.

The mining tax was first proposed by Ken Henry. It was part of an entire reform of the Australian tax system and the economy, post-mining boom.

It included measures like scrapping stamp duty on home sales to allow more mobility in the housing market, lowering company tax to stimulate development, and raising superannuation from 9 to 12% to create a greater pool of Australian investment and raise retirement income.

The current government picked ideas it liked, and knocked back others. The Henry review also wanted a 5% rise in the GST, which would be a hard sell, but Labor implimented the mining tax and have a date to raise super.

Abbott intends to scrap the mining tax and do away with the rise in super. It also wants an additional 1.5% rise in the company tax of about a thousand big companies to pay for its maternity leave package.

Abbott will ditch the mining and carbon taxes, but raise some companies’ company tax, get rid of the proposed rise in super and spend 3.2 billion on "direct action" policies to meet the promised 5% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.

So, in a nutshell, please don’t pretend the Libs are somehow "fair" or apolitical when it comes to taxing and spending money. Many of their policies are ludicrous, unpopular and irrational. Direct action - the government pays. Maternity leave - the big companies pay. And we all lose the rise in super to pay for other things, whatever they are.

We need a mining super-profits tax now, more than any other time in history. Why? Because the profits now are unprecedented, and we need the cash badly.

Abbott WILL spend it, and he has no hope of returning to surplus.

You know this, I know this, it’s hardly a secret. Let’s not pretend. We need more taxes. The only question is who will cough up the money.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2013 at 10:28pm:


I would expect you to say that a mining tax is a bad tax but since your making the case I think it would be useful for those who didn't attend your business management classes if you were to clear up a few thing.  First it would help if you were to explain your terms like "low visionary impact". Look I know it sounds impressive, it does, don't misunderstand me but if we are to feel the full force of your point or even understand it I think you should explain that term. Secondly as I understand it what your talking about is what a business manager running a business should do when he/she wants to cut costs. That is, what he or she should do to cut costs, within the business environment in which the business operates including whatever taxes might apply to the running of that business. In other words, the rule is a rule for business managers not governments because of course governments don't run your business (you do) and have other considerations to consider including whats fair and whats good for the community as a whole.  But if I'm wrong in this and the government was derelict in overlooking the rule you set out, what do you think might have possessed Ken Henry (Federal Treasury Secretary) in proposing it.  Also do you think maybe if the tax remained set at the level originally set by the government and proposed by Henry, it would now be netting the level of revenue to satisfy your rule.  And finally when you speak about "cutting your rebate on fracking R&D" and how much its cost your bottom line, have you ever considered that there may be other considerations involved here then just how much money you make. Can't help thinking that your a wet behind the ears junior accountant whose been telling quite a few porkies on this forum about his self importance.